Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I have a perhaps unusual opinion of Janeway; I thought the character was by far at her most interesting on occasions like Tuvix when she made a potentially morally questionable call, but stuck to it with all the force she could, damn the subtlety. It was a character beat most of the other captains, Picard especially, didn't really have.

...

I contend that Endgame is different though. That wasn't a questionable moral stand - it wasn't a moral stand at all. It was entirely selfish.

I dunno, they were both pretty selfish. Janeway doesn't like it when someone takes away her Tuvok

Only difference to me is that Tuvix is murder while endgame is beyond any crime that has a name - it reminds me of the end dialogue between Picard/Uxbridge in that fantastic TNG episode. Really, the writers have her character go here there and everywhere. Current Janeway should have never bought anything that future Janeway was selling. I guess she only embodies the principals of the federation when it suits her interests

I dunno, they were both pretty selfish. Janeway doesn't like it when someone takes away her Tuvok

That's not fair. It was hardly a selfish decision. Janeway had to think about the morale of the entire crew, and the fact that they all had to live together for an indefinite length of time. When Tuvix refused to undergo the procedure, he basically condemned two other people, Neelix and Tuvok, to death in order to save himself, and in so doing he alienated the rest of the crew. If Janeway had let him stay, there would've been a lot of resentment toward him, and that would've had a dangerous effect on crew morale and cohesion, something they simply couldn't afford when the crew were stuck with each other and had to work together to survive. It was a harsh decision, but it was the only pragmatic one the commander of a starship in such a situation could've made. And yes, you could argue it was murder, but by that definition, letting Tuvix live would've constituted a double murder. The whole point of the story was that there was no right answer, that it was an agonizing, impossible choice to have to make.

That's not fair. It was hardly a selfish decision. Janeway had to think about the morale of the entire crew, and the fact that they all had to live together for an indefinite length of time. When Tuvix refused to undergo the procedure, he basically condemned two other people, Neelix and Tuvok, to death in order to save himself, and in so doing he alienated the rest of the crew. If Janeway had let him stay, there would've been a lot of resentment toward him, and that would've had a dangerous effect on crew morale and cohesion, something they simply couldn't afford when the crew were stuck with each other and had to work together to survive. It was a harsh decision, but it was the only pragmatic one the commander of a starship in such a situation could've made.

I don't accept that for Janeway. Destroying the array surely (should have) had a much more dangerous effect on crew morale and cohesion, but she did it. So her criterion wouldn't involve that kind of thinking.

Christopher wrote:

And yes, you could argue it was murder, but by that definition, letting Tuvix live would've constituted a double murder. The whole point of the story was that there was no right answer, that it was an agonizing, impossible choice to have to make.

I don't see that, failure to act isn't murder. I don't disagree about it being an incredibly hard choice, but at the end of the day if you have an innocent person who says they don't want to die...

You are trying to explain something but it cannot be murder. Even if we overlook the fact that someone who does not exist at the point of their 'death' cannot commit murder, the law permits you to kill others in self-defence. If those were three random chracters and Tuvix was walking the street and was confronted by Tuvok and Neelix and if he did not kill them, then they would kill him - then he would be able to lawfully kill them.

I don't accept that for Janeway. Destroying the array surely (should have) had a much more dangerous effect on crew morale and cohesion, but she did it. So her criterion wouldn't involve that kind of thinking.

That's not a valid analogy, because the circumstances were far from equivalent. For one thing, in "Caretaker" she made that decision for the good of the Ocampa; Starfleet captains are always ready to sacrifice themselves and their crews for the good of others. But in "Tuvix" it was only her own crew's well-being that was at stake, so the parameters of the decision were totally different. For another thing, naturally she wouldn't think exactly the same way at the very beginning of Voyager's time in the Delta Quadrant, when the idea of survival there was merely an abstraction and when she barely knew most of her crew, as she'd think months later, after having had time to live with the realities of their situation and gotten to know her crew so much better.

I don't see that, failure to act isn't murder. I don't disagree about it being an incredibly hard choice, but at the end of the day if you have an innocent person who says they don't want to die...

As I said, it's not about the law. It's pointless to talk about it as though there's anything remotely resembling a "right" answer. Either choice was wrong; either choice would kill someone who deserved to live. That's what made it such a compelling and wrenching story. Janeway's decision wasn't about law or morality, because the factors cancelled out either way. It was about being the commander of a starship crew in desperate straits and having to make the choice that best served their chances of long-term survival -- even though it was a ruthless choice. That's the sort of decision that a captain in that kind of situation would have to make from time to time. Voyager too often glossed over the harsh compromises their situation would demand, but this was one time the show confronted the issue outright. We weren't supposed to like Janeway's decision. We were supposed to understand that there was no good decision in that situation.

And yes, you could argue it was murder, but by that definition, letting Tuvix live would've constituted a double murder. The whole point of the story was that there was no right answer, that it was an agonizing, impossible choice to have to make.

Hmm... it's been a long while since I watched it, but if I remember the ep correctly, letting Tuvix live would not be a double murder. Tuvok and Neelix had already been "killed" in an accident... Tuvix's death was premeditated murder in order to "resurrect" the original two.

That's not a valid analogy, because the circumstances were far from equivalent. For one thing, in "Caretaker" she made that decision for the good of the Ocampa; Starfleet captains are always ready to sacrifice themselves and their crews for the good of others. But in "Tuvix" it was only her own crew's well-being that was at stake, so the parameters of the decision were totally different. For another thing, naturally she wouldn't think exactly the same way at the very beginning of Voyager's time in the Delta Quadrant, when the idea of survival there was merely an abstraction and when she barely knew most of her crew, as she'd think months later, after having had time to live with the realities of their situation and gotten to know her crew so much better.

Fine, then just turn it around - they got over that quick enough, they'll get over this.

As I said, it's not about the law. It's pointless to talk about it as though there's anything remotely resembling a "right" answer. Either choice was wrong; either choice would kill someone who deserved to live. That's what made it such a compelling and wrenching story. Janeway's decision wasn't about law or morality, because the factors cancelled out either way. It was about being the commander of a starship crew in desperate straits and having to make the choice that best served their chances of long-term survival -- even though it was a ruthless choice. That's the sort of decision that a captain in that kind of situation would have to make from time to time. Voyager too often glossed over the harsh compromises their situation would demand, but this was one time the show confronted the issue outright. We weren't supposed to like Janeway's decision. We were supposed to understand that there was no good decision in that situation.

No, I actually fundamentally disagree here. What she did was murder. Tuvok & Neelix were already dead. This is the equivalent of sacrificing someone to bring them back to life.

That he only came to be because of their deaths is irrelevant, since it was no doing, or fault of his.

This is the equivalent of sacrificing someone to bring them back to life.

To bring the topic back full circle - isn't that what David Mack did in this trilogy? Sacrificing Soong sen. for Soong jun. (why doesn't Data carry the surname, anyway?), sacrificing Data's inamorata for his daughter.

__________________
1.000 years: University Leipzig, 1409-2409Gorn to be wild!

That's an incredibly insensitive and cavalier way of thinking about the needs of a crew of 150 people in dire straits. Of course it wouldn't be remotely that simple.

Well watching season one they seem to get over being stranded pretty quickly

And no, I don't think people having to "get over" not murdering someone to bring their buddies back is that cavalier, rather the reverse

Markonian wrote:

To bring the topic back full circle - isn't that what David Mack did in this trilogy? Sacrificing Soong sen. for Soong jun. (why doesn't Data carry the surname, anyway?), sacrificing Data's inamorata for his daughter.

Sort of, although no-one is ever in the position Janeway is in. Soong does the job himself, and data has a true no-win scenario. Worf's girlfriend dying seeming to finally get worf back in starfleets good graces from that time he put family over mission was a rather nice touch(need to recheck that and make sure I got the order right).

And yes, you could argue it was murder, but by that definition, letting Tuvix live would've constituted a double murder. The whole point of the story was that there was no right answer, that it was an agonizing, impossible choice to have to make.

Hmm... it's been a long while since I watched it, but if I remember the ep correctly, letting Tuvix live would not be a double murder. Tuvok and Neelix had already been "killed" in an accident... Tuvix's death was premeditated murder in order to "resurrect" the original two.

I've seen that argument made and I've never understood why.

Transporters can't bring the dead back to life. Tuvix wasn't a real boy, he was the result of a transporter accident.

It's made that way for the ethical aspect. This is about murdering a blameless person to revive two.

The transporter or whatever macguffin is neither here nor there

But isn't that just picking and chosing what you want to be revelant in the episode and not the whole episode itself. You cannot make good arguments by just picking up things out of context. This is one time that I totally agree with Christopher, there was no right choice, only the choice that hurts the least amount of people.

__________________
"My name is Matai Shang and I do not exist, indeed I work very hard at it."